The Dispatch
Share this post
The Pandemic Is Forcing Women Out of the Workforce. There’s a Way to Fix That.
thedispatch.com

The Pandemic Is Forcing Women Out of the Workforce. There’s a Way to Fix That.

Opening more schools would be a good start. We also need to give parents control over the tax dollars that are spent on their kids’ education.

Dan Lips
Oct 8, 2020
18
19
Share this post
The Pandemic Is Forcing Women Out of the Workforce. There’s a Way to Fix That.
thedispatch.com

The pandemic is exposing barriers to equal opportunity that remain in American life. Access to affordable and high-quality childcare and schooling options is near the top of the list.

Considerable coverage has been devoted to the effect on the pandemic on children, particularly those from low-income families being left behind by virtual schooling. But we have a statistic that illustrates the problem from another point of view: American women are leaving the labor market much more frequently than men during the pandemic. The Department of Labor’s September jobs report showed that the number of American women older than 20 in the labor force dropped by 956,000 since August, compared with a decline of 307,000 among men. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the workforce participation rate among American women in 2020 has fallen to levels not seen since the 1980s. 

Many factors are changing Americans’ employment opportunities: economic shutdowns, reduced demand for some professions, and more. But caring for children is posing a specific challenge to working parents, particularly women who are often primary caregivers. The Census Bureau recently reported that 25 percent of parents (ages 25 to 44) were not working because of childcare challenges caused by the pandemic. Women were nearly three times more likely than men to be out of work to provide childcare. 

In the short term, this new childcare burden highlights why American schools should reopen, particularly given the promising public health evidence that it is safe to do so. Looking beyond the pandemic, reforming public childcare programs to yield greater value for working parents should be a bipartisan priority to improve economic opportunity. 

The economic and educational cost of pandemic school closures. 

Weeks into fall, many schools and childcare centers across the United States remain closed. The Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington reviewed 477 school district’s reopening plans and found that 26 percent provided only remote instruction as of September 10. School districts serving larger populations of children living in poverty were more likely to begin the year remotely. 

At the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), our ongoing review of the nation’s 120 largest school districts shows that more than half continue to provide only remote learning as of early October. These closed school districts serve an estimated 1.5 million children living in poverty. Many of these large school districts have no current timeline to reopen. Several have committed to staying closed through December. 

Many childcare centers have also closed. The National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University reports that “nearly three-quarters (74%) of children attending preschool programs had their programs closed as a result of the pandemic,” based on a spring parent survey. Childcare closures have continued in many communities since spring. For example, nearly 4,500 childcare centers have closed in D.C, Maryland, and Virginia, many permanently.    

For working parents, school closures and childcare shortages are creating significant challenges. Many are forced to choose between their jobs and providing care for their children, including supporting distance learning. Based on the September jobs reports, many appear to be choosing the latter. Unfortunately, the greatest hardship falls on lower-income families. Not only are they less likely to have the freedom to work from home or reduce their hours, they are less able to pay for creative education or childcare arrangements. 

Beyond these direct economic costs, there is growing evidence that pandemic-related school closures are creating significant learning losses for a generation of children with lasting consequences. Stanford University researchers recently estimated the learning losses of students affected by spring school closures. “Across the 19 states,” the researchers found, “the average estimates of how much students lost in the Spring of 2020 ranged from 57 to 183 days of learning in Reading and from 136 to 232 days of learning in Math.” 

These findings are consistent with other estimates. For example, Brown University researchers projected that spring closures would cause students to lose a third of a year’s learning in reading and half a year’s learning in math by fall. They warned that these losses would not be universal and, therefore, would grow the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. McKinsey modeled the effects of school closures on specific student populations and warned that low-income students will fall one year behind if schools remain closed through December. 

The likely long-term consequences of these learning losses are staggering. For example, a recent OECD study estimated that school closures will result in a 1.5 percent loss of future GDP or a total economic cost of $15.3 trillion. 

The emerging public health evidence for reopening schools. 

These educational and economic costs of school closures are tragic, particularly given the growing evidence that they may be unnecessary to protect public health. 

In July, FREOPP examined the public health evidence about the risk of COVID-19 to children. Based on international evidence, we argued that the risk to children was sufficiently low to justify reopening, while recommending precautions. “The risks of infection and transmission are low for all school-aged children, but they are especially low for elementary school students,” we wrote. “Schools and policymakers should understand this and recognize the value in reopening schools on time especially for younger children.”

We recommended safely reopening the nation’s schools by following public health guidance while also accommodating families, teachers, and school employees by providing maximum flexibility for those who believe it is unsafe to return to school.

There is now more encouraging evidence that schools can safely reopen based on the experience of school districts that have reopened. For example, a USA Today analysis of Florida’s experience of school districts reopening found that, “the state’s positive case count among kids age 5 to 17 declined through late September after a peak in July.” According to a Brown University project tracking COVID responses at more than 750 U.S. schools that have at least partially reopened, just 0.13 percent of students and 0.25 percent of teachers had a confirmed coronavirus infection during the month of September.

The long-term opportunity to reform childcare programs to benefit working parents. 

Reopening American schools is a good first step. But addressing permanent childcare center closures poses a more complicated challenge for policymakers interested in improving the value of public preschool programs. 

One promising solution is to reform existing taxpayer-funded preschool programs to give parents more flexibility over how their child’s preschool and childcare dollars are used, particularly as childcare centers are slow to reopen after the pandemic. 

The federal government’s largest preschool program offers a poor deal for parents. The United States spends $9 billion annually on Head Start, or more than $10,000 per student enrolled. But Head Start centers are required to provide only 448 hours of care per year, or less than half of the 1,080 hours that most public schools are open. Past evaluations have found that Head Start doesn’t provide lasting educational benefits for participating kids. 

Giving parents control of their child’s share of Head Start funding to arrange for private childcare could dramatically increase the number of hours of care provided and improve the program’s educational value. For example, in 37 states, the per-child cost of the Head Start program is more than the average cost of full-time childcare for a 4-year-old. Increasing the hours of childcare provided would allow working parents to boost annual earnings by 20 percent or more. Allowing parents greater choice should also lead to program improvement and positive educational outcomes.

During the pandemic, giving parents control of this funding could increase access to childcare and keep some parents in the labor force. NIEER reports that private preschool and home-based care providers were more likely to remain open during the pandemic than public programs. Expanding the range of eligible providers to include more private centers and home-based care would begin to help expand the supply of childcare for all parents. 

Conclusion.

The rising number of American women leaving the workforce underscores why policymakers must compare the potential public health benefits of school closures with the long-term costs and develop better options for continuing life during the pandemic. The solution may be as simple as reopening K-12 schools and giving low-income parents more control of their child’s share of federal preschool funding. 

Dan Lips is a visiting fellow with the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.

Photograph by Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images.

19
Share this post
The Pandemic Is Forcing Women Out of the Workforce. There’s a Way to Fix That.
thedispatch.com
19 Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only Dispatch Members only can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

Scott N.
Oct 8, 2020

I think there’s an important explanatory variable missing here as to why the schools that most need to be open aren’t: the vulnerability of their populations.

The schools being kept closed are most especially in poorer, minority-heavy, and/or densely populated areas. The facilities themselves are often old and run down, which in terms of COVID often means the ventilation is terrible. This will become a greater problem when the winter comes and opening windows or other airflow measures aren’t practical. These demographics are also much more likely to have multi-generational households where grandparents provide childcare while the parents are often physically working somewhere, either as retail or customer-facing workers or in factories/warehouses in close proximity to others.

Combine these factors with nutrition issues, higher and less well-controlled chronic medical conditions including obesity and high blood prsssure, and COVID’s nasty habit of preying on black and Hispanic populations to a much higher degree, and you get a catch-22 situation for the families and the teachers.

Re: race, it is unclear whether race is an independent variable with explanatory power of its own (such that an extremely wealthy black community with similar traits to an extremely wealthy white community would sill have higher covid morbidity and mortality) or simply is a shorthand rubric that largely fits.

A wealthy family with each parent staying at home or in a white collar minimal physical contact job sending kids to school with other similarly situated families is much, much less likely to have problems even when covid shows up in a classroom than the school where many of the parents have multiple in-person jobs, live-in grandparent caregivers, and racial+socioeconomic with grandma as primary, live-in caregiver.

The solutions to this dilemma from a health standpoint would be both complex, rather redistributive, and politically challenging.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
1 reply
Scott Southard
Oct 8, 2020

"Reopening American schools is a good first step. But addressing permanent childcare center closures poses a more complicated challenge for policymakers interested in improving the value of public preschool programs." Thus the conclusion is to give "parents control of their child’s share of Head Start funding [so that they might] arrange for private childcare," and this private childcare will (magically?) both be longer and "higher in educational value."

Child care is expensive; the reason childcare is expensive is that childcare workers are expensive. (Any full-time worker is expensive, because we have tied healthcare to employment, but I digress…) Qualified, well-trained childcare workers are even more expensive. Somehow private childcare will be plentiful, cheaper, *and* better? We're in privatization of education as magical panacea land.

How might we instead make *public* preschool, education, what-have-you better? Methinks the writer is not "interested in improving the value of public preschool programs."

Expand full comment
ReplyGive giftCollapse
17 more comments…
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 The Dispatch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing